Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/360,847

COMMUNICATION METHOD AND APPARATUS

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Jul 28, 2023
Examiner
VANGAPATY, SRIHARSHA REDDY
Art Unit
2475
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
50%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 50% of resolved cases
50%
Career Allow Rate
1 granted / 2 resolved
-8.0% vs TC avg
Strong +100% interview lift
Without
With
+100.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
35
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
60.5%
+20.5% vs TC avg
§102
23.0%
-17.0% vs TC avg
§112
12.5%
-27.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 2 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 November 19, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-7, 14-16, and 21-26 are pending in the application. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 and 14-16 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. 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 1-7, 14-16, and 21-26 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. Amended independent claims 1 and 14 recite “the first data packet and the third data packet are multiplexed in the first PC5 link” and Amended independent claim 25 recites “the first data packet and the second data packet are multiplexed in the third PC5 link.” However, the present application as filed fails to disclose anything related to multiplexing in any manner, much less multiplexing packets in a single PC5 link and multiplexing different packets towards different terminals in a single PC5 link. Furthermore, ¶ [0142] of the specification appears to be most relevant to the abovementioned claim limitation, and it describes “reusing of the transmission link may mean that data packets sent to different target terminals or data packets from different target terminals are transmitted on the transmission link in a period of time.” Firstly, transmission links and data packets are different from each other. A transmission link does not disclose a packet in that link. Secondly, reusing and multiplexing are two completely different concepts, and nothing has been found in the application that indicates any equivalence between them. Finally, receiving data packets from different terminals in a period of time does not disclose that they are received at the same time or using the same time resource, much less that they are combined in some manner. Therefore, even the most relevant portion of the application does not describe the subject matter of the claim in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Additionally, on p. 9 of Applicant’s response, Applicant even contends that “it is not ‘common sense’ that a single PC5 link is used for multiplexing different data packets towards different terminals.” Accordingly, in view of the present application’s failure to disclose the amended subject matter and the abovementioned contention by the Applicant, claims 1, 14, and 25 contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention, and thus, fail to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 2-7, 15, 16, 21-24, and 26 depend on independent claims 1, 14, and 25 respectively, and accordingly, fail to comply with the written description requirement for at least the same reasons as mentioned above with respect to claims 1, 14, and 25. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SRIHARSHA REDDY VANGAPATY whose telephone number is (571)272-7655. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST. 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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at (571) 270-3770. 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. /SRIHARSHA REDDY VANGAPATY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2475 /HASHIM S BHATTI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 28, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Nov 19, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 02, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

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
50%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+100.0%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 2 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