Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/434,720

ENHANCED OPERATION FOR TRANSMISSION POWER PRIORITIZATION

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 06, 2024
Examiner
WENDELL, ANDREW
Art Unit
2648
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Nokia Technologies Oy
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
752 granted / 893 resolved
+22.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
18 currently pending
Career history
911
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.1%
-32.9% vs TC avg
§103
59.8%
+19.8% vs TC avg
§102
10.0%
-30.0% vs TC avg
§112
6.0%
-34.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 893 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 § 103 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. 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 1, 7-8, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Islam et al. (US Pat Pub# 2021/0410154) in view of Zhou et al. (US Pat Pub# 2025/0374281). Regarding claims 1, 8, and 12, Islam teaches an apparatus (Figs. 5-8), comprising at least one processor (Figs. 5-8, as shown processors etc.); and at least one memory storing instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to receive, from a network element, a configuration to transmit an indication of an uplink transmission adjustment to the network element (Section 0180, user equipment receiving from a cellular network indication of modifying the uplink transmission); and perform, in response to the the existence of overlapping of uplink transmissions, at least one of the uplink transmission adjustment of the uplink transmission to the network element or an uplink scheduling adjustment (Section 0180, user equipment receiving from a cellular network indication of modifying the uplink transmission). Islam fails to teach determining an overlap of uplink transmissions. Zhou teaches determine an existence of overlapping of uplink transmissions to the network element (Section 0097, first device determining the overlapping of uplink transmissions etc.); transmit, in response to the determination of the existence of overlapping of uplink transmissions, the indication to the network element (Section 0097, first device determining the overlapping of uplink transmissions and sending indication information to a second network device etc.). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate determining an overlap of uplink transmissions as taught by Zhou into Islam’s apparatus in order to reduce interference. Regarding claims 7 and 18, the combination including Islam teaches wherein the indication comprises information indicative of a power reduction larger than an offset or a power reduction leading to a transmit power lower than a threshold (Sections 0016, 0021, 0050, and 0069, power reduction to transmit power etc.). Claims 2, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Islam et al. (US Pat Pub# 2021/0410154) in view of Zhou et al. (US Pat Pub# 2025/0374281) and further in view of Cao et al. (US Pat Pub# 2023/035438). Regarding claims 2, 9, and 13, Islam in view of Zhou teaches the limitations in claims 1, 8, and 12. However, Islam and Zhou fail to teach a primary cell. Cao teaches wherein the configuration to transmit the indication comprises at least one of the following a configuration of the indication to be transmitted per component carrier or per cell group, per bandwidth part or per bandwidth, per panel, per control resource set pool index, per reference signal set, or per transmission reception point, a configuration of the indication to be transmitted through at least one uplink resource on a primary cell, a primary cell group, or a primary link, a configuration of the indication to be transmitted on at least one uplink resource on a cell or cell group over which a blanking or a transmit power reduction due to power prioritization has occurred, configuration of the indication to be transmitted on at least one uplink resource corresponding to at least one dedicated or configured cell, a cell group, or a link, a configuration of the indication to be transmitted in at least one of the overlapping uplink transmissions, or a configuration of the indication to be transmitted after a period of time from the overlapping uplink transmissions (Sections 0104-0105, configuration indication per component carrier on a primary cell in at least one of the overlapping uplink transmission). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a primary cell as taught by Cao into determining an overlap of uplink transmissions as taught by Zhou into Islam’s apparatus in order to reduce congestion. Claims 5-6, 11, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Islam et al. (US Pat Pub# 2021/0410154) in view of Zhou et al. (US Pat Pub# 2025/0374281) and further in view of He et al. (US Pat# 12,556,434) Regarding claims 5, 11, and 16, Islam in view of Zhou teaches the limitations in claims 1, 8, and 12. However, Islam and Zhou fail to teach an indication including a physical shared channel and physical control channel. He teaches wherein the indication is transmitted through at least one of the following an uplink control information that is sent or multiplexed on a physical uplink control channel or a physical uplink shared channel of a primary cell, an uplink control information that is sent or multiplexed on a physical control channel or a physical shared channel of a secondary cell over which the uplink transmission adjustment is applied, a medium access control control element through an uplink resource on a primary cell or a secondary cell, an uplink channel or an uplink signal, an uplink resource selection by the apparatus, or a dedicated or a shared periodic uplink resource, a semi-persistent uplink resource, or a scheduling-request-like resource (Claims 1, 7, and 13, uplink configuration indicating a physical shared channel and physical control channel in an overlap transmission). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an indication including a physical shared channel and physical control channel as taught by He into determining an overlap of uplink transmissions as taught by Zhou into Islam’s apparatus in order to improve performance. Regarding claims 6 and 17, He further teaches wherein the physical uplink control channel or the physical uplink shared channel is part of the overlapping uplink transmissions or a different uplink transmission (Claims 1, 7, and 13, uplink configuration indicating a physical shared channel and physical control channel in an overlap transmission). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3-4, 10, and 14-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW WENDELL whose telephone number is (571)272-0557. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM. 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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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. /ANDREW WENDELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648 3/14/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 06, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 14, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604173
PAIRABLE DEVICES AND SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING ASSISTED PAIRING OF DEVICES TO PARTICULAR LOCATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597958
RF FRONT-END ARCHITECTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592726
RADIO FREQUENCY MODULE AND COMMUNICATION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587256
SYNCHRONIZATION BEAM SWEEPING WITH CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE SURFACES IN PRESENCE OF MULTIPLE OPERATORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587040
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CONTROLLING POWER BETWEEN PLURALITY OF DEVICES THROUGH OUT-OF-BAND COMMUNICATION IN WIRELESS POWER TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
84%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+11.6%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 893 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