Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/406,107

Auction-Based Resource Allocation in Communication Systems

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jan 06, 2024
Priority
Sep 13, 2018 — provisional 62/730,966 +8 more
Examiner
SMARTH, GERALD A
Art Unit
2478
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Cable Television Laboratories Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
6m
Est. Remaining
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allowance Rate
646 granted / 775 resolved
+25.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
13 currently pending
Career history
799
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
83.8%
+43.8% vs TC avg
§102
4.4%
-35.6% vs TC avg
§112
2.7%
-37.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 775 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION 1. It is hereby acknowledged that 18/406107 the following papers have been received and placed of record in the file: Remark date 01/06/24 2. The present application, file on or after March 16, 2013, is being examiner under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 3. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 4. 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. 5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 1, 14 and 16 states… allocating the resource units to the plurality of devices based at least in part on the ratios with highest values, thereby utilizing a small number of the non-distributed resource units to satisfice the devices' desired allotment… A small number of non-distributed resource units can be considered subjective and does not seem to be further defined in the specification. Further the Highest values can also be considered subjective. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 6. 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. 7. Claims 14-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding Claim 14, the claim limitations “…a processor configured to: receive bids from the plurality of devices for the shared communication resource, wherein the shared communication resource comprises a plurality of resource units that are distributed in space, time, frequency and/or hardware;…” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because they use a generic placeholder (i.e., “processor”) coupled with functional language and do not recite any structural modifiers. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specification discloses “As used herein, the terms “processor” and “computer” and related terms, e.g., “processing device”, “computing device”, and “controller” are not limited to just those integrated circuits referred to in the art as a computer, but broadly refers to a microcontroller, a microcomputer, a programmable logic controller (PLC), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), and other programmable circuits, and these terms are used interchangeably herein. In the embodiments described herein, memory may include, but is not limited to, a computer-readable medium, such as a random access memory (RAM), and a computer-readable non-volatile medium, such as flash memory. Alternatively, a floppy disk, a compact disc-read only memory (CD-ROM), a magneto-optical disk (MOD), and/or a digital versatile disc (DVD) may also be used. Also, in the embodiments described herein, additional input channels may be, but are not limited to, computer peripherals associated with an operator interface such as a mouse and a keyboard. Alternatively, other computer peripherals may also be used that may include, for example, but not be limited to, a scanner. Furthermore, in the exemplary embodiment, additional output channels may include, but not be limited to, an operator interface monitor”(see paragraph [0054] also see paragraphs [0056],[0058] and [0158]). The explanation of this system seems to be functions, units, modules and also mere examples. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claim 15 depend from Claim 14 and inherit the same deficiencies. Accordingly, they are rejected based on the same reasoning. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gerald Smarth whose telephone number is (571) 270-1923. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 6am-4:30pm ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Avellino can be reached on 571-272-7784. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /GERALD A SMARTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 06, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Apr 23, 2026
Interview Requested
May 05, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
May 05, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12641641
TECHNIQUES FOR INCREASING THE RELIABILITY IN IEEE 802.11
4y 6m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12641407
SUPPLEMENTARY SERVICE SETTINGS SYNCHRONIZATION FOR FIFTH GENERATION (5G) TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORKS
2y 11m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12634742
Mapping Information for Integrated Access and Backhaul
4y 4m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12635028
DISTRIBUTED CONNECTION MANAGEMENT IN CLOUD SYSTEM
2y 8m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12627406
QUICK RECOVERY INDICATION AND RETRANSMISSION REQUEST
3y 4m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+12.6%)
2y 11m (~6m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 775 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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