Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/403,084

METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ACQUIRING CHANNEL IMAGES

Non-Final OA §101§112
Filed
Jan 03, 2024
Examiner
BEAMER, TEMICA M
Art Unit
2646
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Yangtze Delta Region Institute (Quzhou), University Of Electronic Science And Technology Of China
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
884 granted / 1003 resolved
+26.1% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+3.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
1026
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.4%
-34.6% vs TC avg
§103
28.0%
-12.0% vs TC avg
§102
39.4%
-0.6% vs TC avg
§112
5.4%
-34.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1003 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §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 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 and 8 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. In claim 1, line 13, the limitation “each MXS matrix of” seems incomplete. Clarification is needed to determine what specifically is being transformed into a vector. In claim 1 line 8, “a receiving device” is claimed and in line 25, “a device terminal” is claimed. Clarification is needed to determine if these devices are the same device or two different devices. In claim 1, lines 28-29, the limitation “an observation signal at time K+1 consists of observation signals time 2 to the time K+1” seems incomplete since there is no prior mention of an observation signal. Clarification is required. In claim 8, line 8, “a receiving device” is claimed and in line 25, “a device terminal” is claimed. Clarification is needed to determine if these devices are the same device or two different devices. Claims 2-7, 9 and 10 are rejected based on their dependence form claim 1 Claims 1 and 8 recite the limitation "the number" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 1 and 8 recite the limitation "each layer" in line 24 and line 25, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the term “computer-readable storage medium” covers an ineligible signal per se (as described in applicant’s specification in paragraph 0081). The applicant can amend the claim for example by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to cover only statutory embodiments. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “off-line training module”, “dimension reconstruction module”, “sliding window selection module”, “real part and imaginary part separation module”, “neural network training module” and “online inference module” in claim 8. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-10 would be allowable once the above rejections have been overcome. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The present invention relates to a method and system for acquiring channel images for channel estimation. The closest prior art of record, AIT AOUDIA et al. U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0094462, discloses channel estimation by implementing the use training data and data representing a matrix of complex numbers and coefficients. AIT AOUDIA, however, taken individually or collectively, fails to suggest or render obvious the present invention claimed as a whole. Specifically, AIT AOUDIA does not teach obtaining initial channel signals of 3D tensor and received signals, dimension reconstruction, sliding window selection, real and imaginary part separation and neural network training as explicitly described for channel estimation. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Haghighat et al. U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2025/0317938, discloses DMRS enhancement in a telecommunications system. O’Shea et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0342590, discloses access networks with machine learning. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TEMICA M. BEAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-7797. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM. 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, Matthew D. Anderson can be reached at 571-272-4177. 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. /TEMICA M BEAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 03, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §112
Mar 25, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598673
COMMUNICATION DEVICE COMPRISING MOBILE TERMINATION DEVICE AND RADIO BASE STATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12587950
SECURE NETWORK IDENTIFICATION FOR ACTIVE SCANNING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581397
DISTRIBUTED WIRELESS LOCAL AREA NETWORK SCAN FOR LOW LATENCY APPLICATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12574846
Wake-up Signal Reception for Paging Operations
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12532249
ROAMING STEERING METHOD, APPARATUS, DEVICE, STORAGE MEDIUM, AND SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 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
88%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+3.4%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1003 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