Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/404,611

APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR PERFORMING WIRELESS COMMUNICATION IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM SUPPORTING VEHICLE COMMUNICATION

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Jan 04, 2024
Examiner
CAI, WAYNE HUU
Art Unit
2644
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Innovative Technology Lab Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
709 granted / 892 resolved
+17.5% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
929
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.6%
-35.4% vs TC avg
§103
55.2%
+15.2% vs TC avg
§102
19.9%
-20.1% vs TC avg
§112
7.8%
-32.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 892 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 04, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings were received on February 15, 2024. These drawings are acceptable. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1- 23 of U.S. Patent No. 11,902,866. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons: Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,902,866 recites a first wireless device comprising: receive, from a base station, configuration information associated with a packet duplication transmission between wireless devices, wherein the configuration information comprises information indicating a mapping between a logical channel group and a packet reliability parameter, wherein the packet reliability parameter is used to determine, by the first wireless device, activation of the packet duplication transmission between wireless devices and indicates a value selected from a plurality of configured values, and wherein the plurality of configured values comprises eight integer values each indicating a different reliability requirement (col. 32, lines 43-55); determine a data packet to be transmitted to a second wireless device (col. 32, lines 56-57); duplicate, based on the data packet associated with the packet reliability parameter, the data packet to a plurality of data duplicates (col. 32, lines 58-60); map the plurality of data duplicates onto different logical channels in a media access control (MAC) layer (col. 32, lines 61-63); and transmit, via a direct communication to the second wireless device, the plurality of data duplicates mapped onto the different logical channels (col. 32, lines 64-67). Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,902,866 recites a different statutory class, a method claim, instead of an apparatus claim as currently recited in the current application. In addition, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,902,866 does not expressly disclose a first wireless device comprising a wireless transceiver; one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the first wireless device to perform the method of claim 1. However, it is obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art that the first wireless device includes these claimed features in order process the information. Claims 2-13 correspond to claims 2-10, and 20-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,902,866. Regarding claim 14, claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,902,866 recites first wireless device comprising: receive, from a base station, configuration information associated with a packet duplication transmission between wireless devices, wherein the configuration information comprises information indicating a mapping between a logical channel group and a packet reliability parameter, wherein the packet reliability parameter is used to determine, by the first wireless device, activation of the packet duplication transmission between wireless devices and indicates a value selected from a plurality of configured values, and wherein the plurality of configured values comprises eight integer values each indicating a different reliability requirement (col. 33, lines 48-60); receive, via a direct communication from a second wireless device, a plurality of data duplicates mapped onto different logical channels (col. 33, lines 61-63); determine, based on the different logical channels, the plurality of data duplicates, wherein the plurality of data duplicates are associated with a same sequence number (col. 33, lines 64-67); store, based on the same sequence number, one of the plurality of data duplicates (col. 34, lines 1-2); and discard, after storing the one of the plurality of data duplicates, remaining data duplicates of the plurality of data duplicates (col. 34, lines 3-4). Claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,902,866 recites a different statutory class, a method claim, instead of an apparatus claim as currently recited in the current application. In addition, claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,902,866 does not expressly disclose a first wireless device comprising a wireless transceiver; one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the first wireless device to perform the method of claim 11. However, it is obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art that the first wireless device includes these claimed features in order process the information. Claims 15-23 correspond to claims 12-19, and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 11,902,866. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-23 are allowed pending the Applicant overcoming the above double patenting rejections. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding independent claims 1, and 14, Yu et al. as cited in IDS dated January 4, 2024 (US 2018/0324642) discloses techniques for operating procedures associated with packet duplication. Yu et al. also discloses the UE 610 receives an activation message from base station 605 as shown in Fig. 6A. This activation message indicates to the UE 610 that sets of copied packets are to be transmitted (see paragraph 0185). This teaching of Yu et al. reads on “receiving from a base station configuration information associated with a packet duplication transmission”. Yu et al., however, does not expressly disclose “wherein the configuration information comprises information indicating a mapping between a logical channel group and a packet reliability parameter, wherein the packet reliability parameter is used to determine, by the first wireless device, activation of the packet duplication transmission between wireless devices and indicates a value selected from a plurality of configured values, and wherein the plurality of configured values comprises eight integer values each indicating a different reliability requirement”. Similarly, Babaei et al. as cited in IDS dated January 4, 2024 (US 2018/0368107) discloses logical channel mapping with packet duplication. Babaei et al. also discloses in paragraph 0262 that a MAC CE may indicate the first logical channel and the second logical channel. Babaei et al. further discloses that the one or more messages may indicate that the first logical channel is mapped to one or more first cells/carriers and the second logical channel is mapped to one or more second cells/carriers. This teaching of Babaei et al. reads on “mapping the plurality of data duplicates onto different logical channels in a MAC layer” of claim language. However, Babaei et al. does not expressly disclose “wherein the configuration information comprises information indicating a mapping between a logical channel group and a packet reliability parameter, wherein the packet reliability parameter is used to determine, by the first wireless device, activation of the packet duplication transmission between wireless devices and indicates a value selected from a plurality of configured values, and wherein the plurality of configured values comprises eight integer values each indicating a different reliability requirement”. Therefore, the Examiner allows independent claims 1 and 14 at least for the above reasons, in combination with all other features recited within claims. Claims 2-13, and 15-23 depend either directly or indirectly upon independent claims 1, and 14. Therefore, they are also allowed by virtue of their dependency. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE CAI whose telephone number is (571)272-7798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:00 AM-5:00 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, KATHY WANG-HURST can be reached at (571)270-5371. 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. /Wayne H Cai/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 04, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604290
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MEASURING SYNCHRONIZATION SIGNAL IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597333
IDENTIFYING EMERGENCY RESPONSE VALIDITY AND SEVERITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598548
Support For Network Service
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593209
Secondary or Splice-Specific Access Control in a Wireless Communication Network
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593272
METHOD AND USER EQUIPMENT (UE) FOR SELECTING ACCESS NETWORK FOR ROUTING DATA OF THE UE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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
80%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+16.4%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 892 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