Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/353,841

THROUGHPUT PREDICTION USING UL METRICS AND/OR REPORTED CSI

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jul 17, 2023
Examiner
NGUYEN, MINH TRANG T
Art Unit
2477
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
90%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 90% — above average
90%
Career Allow Rate
795 granted / 882 resolved
+32.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +5% lift
Without
With
+5.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
901
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.9%
-32.1% vs TC avg
§103
40.5%
+0.5% vs TC avg
§102
37.3%
-2.7% vs TC avg
§112
5.1%
-34.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 882 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see remark, filed 10/15/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reider et al (US 2020/0186227) in view of Bai et al (US 2023/0353264) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of by Files et al (US 2022/0123797) (hereinafter Files). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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)(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, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Files et al (US 2022/0123797). Regarding claim 1, Files discloses a base station (BS) (see Files, Fig. 1, p. [0018], e.g., an information handling system 100 can be a base station transceiver) comprising: a transceiver configured to receive a set of input metrics (see Files, p. [0053], e.g., The information handling system 100 includes an antenna selection machine learning module 140, and p. [0054], e.g., the antenna selection machine learning module 140 receives as input the location, orientation, and configuration data of the information handling system 100); and a processor operably coupled to the transceiver (e.g., base station transceiver), the processor configured to: calculate, based on the set of input metrics, a transmit antenna selection (TAS) throughput prediction (see Files, p. [0054], e.g., the antenna selection machine learning module 140 may execute any machine learning classifier or other deep learning supervised learning system to provide a recommendation as to which of the antenna systems 132 to be used based on the location, orientation, and configuration data of the information handling system 100 and the historical antenna use profiles); and generate, based on the TAS throughput prediction, a predicted TAS throughput result (see Files, p. [0054], e.g., the antenna selection machine learning module 140 may provide a prioritized list of antenna recommendations to be used to communicatively couple the information handling system to a network). Regarding claim 8, Files discloses a method of operating a base station (BS) (see Files, Fig. 1, p. [0018], e.g., a base station transceiver), the method comprising: receiving a set of input metrics (see Files, p. [0053], e.g., The information handling system 100 includes an antenna selection machine learning module 140, and p. [0054], e.g., the antenna selection machine learning module 140 receives as input the location, orientation, and configuration data of the information handling system 100); calculating, based on the set of input metrics, a transmit antenna selection (TAS) throughput prediction (see Files, p. [0054], e.g., the antenna selection machine learning module 140 may execute any machine learning classifier or other deep learning supervised learning system to provide a recommendation as to which of the antenna systems 132 to be used based on the location, orientation, and configuration data of the information handling system 100 and the historical antenna use profiles); and generating, based on the TAS throughput prediction, a predicted TAS throughput result (see Files, p. [0054], e.g., the antenna selection machine learning module 140 may provide a prioritized list of antenna recommendations to be used to communicatively couple the information handling system to a network). Regarding claim 15, Files discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium embodying a computer program, the computer program comprising program code that, when executed by a processor of a device (see Files, Fig. 1, p. [0018]), causes the device to: receive a set of input metrics (see Files, p. [0053], e.g., The information handling system 100 includes an antenna selection machine learning module 140, and p. [0054], e.g., the antenna selection machine learning module 140 receives as input the location, orientation, and configuration data of the information handling system 100); calculate, based on the set of input metrics, a transmit antenna selection (TAS) throughput prediction (see Files, p. [0054], e.g., the antenna selection machine learning module 140 may execute any machine learning classifier or other deep learning supervised learning system to provide a recommendation as to which of the antenna systems 132 to be used based on the location, orientation, and configuration data of the information handling system 100 and the historical antenna use profiles); and generate, based on the TAS throughput prediction, a predicted TAS throughput result (see Files, p. [0054], e.g., the antenna selection machine learning module 140 may provide a prioritized list of antenna recommendations to be used to communicatively couple the information handling system to a network). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Files in view of Reider et al (US 2020/0186227) (hereinafter Reider). Regarding claim 2, Files discloses the base station of claim 1, wherein: the TAS throughput prediction is a single model throughput prediction (see Files, Fig. 1, p. [0054], e.g., the antenna selection machine learning module 140). Files does not expressly disclose the base station of claim 1, wherein: the set of input metrics comprises at least one metric derived from a sounding reference signal (SRS), and the TAS throughput prediction is calculated based on an uplink (UL) signal to interference and noise ratio (SINR) value, a beamforming loss (BFloss), a first parameter identified from an offline model training procedure, and a second parameter identified from the offline model training procedure. Reider discloses the above recited limitations (see Reider, p. [0075], p. [0093-0096], e.g., the training module then collects the channel quality measurements, p. [0094], e.g., the training module then sends the machine learning model update to the prediction module, and p. [0096], e.g., the prediction module then determines the best beam). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Reider’s teachings into Files. The suggestion/motivation would have been to optimize the selection among wireless antenna options on an information handling system connected to a network as suggested by Reider. Regarding claim 3, the combined teaching of Files and Reider disclose the base station of claim 2, wherein: the set of input metrics further comprises at least one metric derived from a channel state information (CSI) report, and the TAS throughput prediction is calculated based on mapping a reported channel quality indicator (CQI) to a signal to interference and noise ratio (SINR) value (see Reider, Fig. 1, p. [0051], [0092], e.g., the 5G radio unit provides all channel quality measurements to the measurement collector 102). Regarding claim 4, the combined teaching of Files and Reider disclose the base station of claim 1, wherein: the TAS throughput prediction is a multiple model throughput prediction (see Reider, p. [0031], e.g., the system is further configured to create different machine learning models, and Fig. 11, p. [0119], e.g., different ML models), and the set of input metrics comprises at least one metric derived from a sounding reference signal (SRS) and at least one metric derived from a channel state information (CSI) report (see Reider, p. [0050], e.g., channel quality measurements). Regarding claim 5, the combined teaching of Files and Reider disclose the base station of claim 4, wherein the processor is further configured to select a TAS throughput prediction model based on a maximum uplink (UL) signal to noise ratio (SNR) across all receive (RX) ports, wherein the TAS throughput prediction is calculated based on the selected TAS throughput prediction model (see Reider, p. [0031], e.g., the system is further configured to create different machine learning models for different corresponding, respective cell sites of the radio access network, and select one of the machine learning models based on a location of the user equipment in one of the cell sites or a set of cells to predict the beam with the highest channel quality among the plurality of beams). Regarding claim 6, the combined teaching of Files and Reider disclose the base station of claim 4, wherein the processor is further configured to select a TAS throughput prediction model based on an uplink (UL) signal to noise ratio (SNR) of a specific SRS port, wherein the TAS throughput prediction is calculated based on the selected TAS throughput prediction model (see Reider, p. [0031], e.g., the system is further configured to select one of the machine learning models based on a set of cells to predict the beam with the highest channel quality among the plurality of beams). Regarding claim 7, the combined teaching of Files and Reider disclose the base station of claim 4, wherein the processor is further configured to select a TAS throughput prediction model based on a UE mobility profile, wherein the TAS throughput prediction is calculated based on the selected TAS throughput prediction model (see Reider, p. [0031], e.g., the system is further configured to select one of the machine learning models based on a location of the user equipment in one of the cell sites). Regarding claim 9, the combined teaching of Files and Reider disclose the method of claim 8, wherein: the TAS throughput prediction is a single model throughput prediction (see Reider, p [0094], e.g., machine learning model), the set of input metrics comprises at least one metric derived from a sounding reference signal (SRS), and the TAS throughput prediction is calculated based on an uplink (UL) signal to interference and noise ratio (SINR) value, a beamforming loss (BFloss) (see Reider, p. [0075], p. [0093-0096], e.g., the training module then collects the channel quality measurements, p. [0094], e.g., the training module then sends the machine learning model update to the prediction module, and p. [0096], e.g., the prediction module then determines the best beam), a first parameter identified from an offline model training procedure, and a second parameter identified from the offline model training procedure. Regarding claim 10, the combined teaching of Files and Reider disclose the method of claim 9, wherein: the set of input metrics further comprises at least one metric derived from a channel state information (CSI) report, and the TAS throughput prediction is calculated based on mapping a reported channel quality indicator (CQI) to a signal to interference and noise ratio (SINR) value (see Reider, Fig. 1, p. [0051], [0092], e.g., the 5G radio unit provides all channel quality measurements to the measurement collector 102). Regarding claim 11, the combined teaching of Files and Reider disclose the method of claim 8, wherein: the TAS throughput prediction is a multiple model throughput prediction (see Reider, p. [0031], e.g., the system is further configured to create different machine learning models, and Fig. 11, p. [0119], e.g., different ML models), and the set of input metrics comprises at least one metric derived from a sounding reference signal (SRS) and at least one metric derived from a channel state information (CSI) report (see Reider, p. [0050], e.g., channel quality measurements). Regarding claim 12, the combined teaching of Files and Reider disclose the method of claim 11, further comprising: selecting a TAS throughput prediction model based on a maximum uplink (UL) signal to noise ratio (SNR) across all receive (RX) ports, wherein the TAS throughput prediction is calculated based on the selected TAS throughput prediction model (see Reider, p. [0031], e.g., the system is further configured to create different machine learning models for different corresponding, respective cell sites of the radio access network, and select one of the machine learning models based on a location of the user equipment in one of the cell sites or a set of cells to predict the beam with the highest channel quality among the plurality of beams). Regarding claim 13, the combined teaching of Files and Reider disclose the method of claim 11, further comprising: selecting a TAS throughput prediction model based on an uplink (UL) signal to noise ratio (SNR) of a specific SRS port, wherein the TAS throughput prediction is calculated based on the selected TAS throughput prediction model (see Reider, p. [0031], e.g., the system is further configured to select one of the machine learning models based on a set of cells to predict the beam with the highest channel quality among the plurality of beams). Regarding claim 14, the combined teaching of Files and Reider disclose the method of claim 11, further comprising: selecting a TAS throughput prediction model based on a UE mobility profile, wherein the TAS throughput prediction is calculated based on the selected TAS throughput prediction model (see Reider, p. [0031], e.g., the system is further configured to select one of the machine learning models based on a location of the user equipment in one of the cell sites). Regarding claim 16, the combined teaching of Files and Reider disclose the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, wherein: the TAS throughput prediction is a single model throughput prediction (see Reider, p [0094], e.g., machine learning model), the set of input metrics comprises at least one metric derived from a sounding reference signal (SRS), and the TAS throughput prediction is calculated based on an uplink (UL) signal to interference and noise ratio (SINR) value, a beamforming loss (BFloss) (see Reider, p. [0075], p. [0093-0096], e.g., the training module then collects the channel quality measurements, p. [0094], e.g., the training module then sends the machine learning model update to the prediction module, and p. [0096], e.g., the prediction module then determines the best beam), a first parameter identified from an offline model training procedure, and a second parameter identified from the offline model training procedure. Regarding claim 17, the combined teaching of Files and Reider disclose the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 16, wherein: the set of input metrics further comprises at least one metric derived from a channel state information (CSI) report, and the TAS throughput prediction is calculated based on mapping a reported channel quality indicator (CQI) to a signal to interference and noise ratio (SINR) value (see Reider, Fig. 1, p. [0051], [0092], e.g., the 5G radio unit provides all channel quality measurements to the measurement collector 102). Regarding claim 18, the combined teaching of Files and Reider disclose the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, wherein: the TAS throughput prediction is a multiple model throughput prediction, the set of input metrics comprises at least one metric derived from a sounding reference signal (SRS) and at least one metric derived from a channel state information (CSI) (see Reider, p. [0031], e.g., the system is further configured to create different machine learning models for different corresponding, respective cell sites of the radio access network, and select one of the machine learning models based on a location of the user equipment in one of the cell sites or a set of cells to predict the beam with the highest channel quality among the plurality of beams), and the computer program further comprises program code that, when executed by the processor, causes the device to select a TAS throughput prediction model based on a maximum uplink (UL) signal to noise ratio (SNR) across all receive (RX) ports, wherein the TAS throughput prediction is calculated based on the selected TAS throughput prediction model (see Reider, p. [0031], e.g., the system is further configured to create different machine learning models for different corresponding, respective cell sites of the radio access network, and select one of the machine learning models based on a location of the user equipment in one of the cell sites or a set of cells to predict the beam with the highest channel quality among the plurality of beams). Regarding claim 19, the combined teaching of Files and Reider disclose the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, wherein: the TAS throughput prediction is a multiple model throughput prediction (see Reider, p. [0031], e.g., the system is further configured to create different machine learning models, and Fig. 11, p. [0119], e.g., different ML models), the set of input metrics comprises at least one metric derived from a sounding reference signal (SRS) and at least one metric derived from a channel state information (CSI), and the computer program further comprises program code that, when executed by the processor, causes the device to select a TAS throughput prediction model based on an uplink (UL) signal to noise ratio (SNR) of a specific SRS port, wherein the TAS throughput prediction is calculated based on the selected TAS throughput prediction model (see Reider, p. [0031], e.g., the system is further configured to create different machine learning models for different corresponding, respective cell sites of the radio access network, and select one of the machine learning models based on a location of the user equipment in one of the cell sites or a set of cells to predict the beam with the highest channel quality among the plurality of beams). Regarding claim 20, the combined teaching of Files and Reider disclose the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, wherein: the TAS throughput prediction is a multiple model throughput prediction (see Reider, p. [0031], e.g., the system is further configured to create different machine learning models, and Fig. 11, p. [0119], e.g., different ML models), the set of input metrics comprises at least one metric derived from a sounding reference signal (SRS) and at least one metric derived from a channel state information (CSI), and the computer program further comprises program code that, when executed by the processor, causes the device to selecting a TAS throughput prediction model based on a UE mobility profile, wherein the TAS throughput prediction is calculated based on the selected TAS throughput prediction model (see Reider, p. [0031], e.g., the system is further configured to select one of the machine learning models based on a location of the user equipment in one of the cell sites). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH TRANG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5248. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-6:00pm. 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, Chirag C Shah can be reached at 571-272-3144. 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. /MINH TRANG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 17, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Oct 15, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12587246
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR TRANSMITTING OR RECEIVING CHANNEL STATE INFORMATION IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580638
SATELLITE COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580633
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CONTROLLING POWER OUTPUT FROM ELECTRONIC DEVICE TO EXTERNAL ELECTRONIC DEVICE IN A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580621
BREATHING RATE ESTIMATION USING RADIO FREQUENCY (RF) SENSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12574094
BEAM SELECTION USING A BEAM FINGERPRINTING DATABASE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
90%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+5.3%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 882 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