Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/436,929

EXCEPTIONS TO REGION-SPECIFIC RADIO FREQUENCY EXPOSURE PARAMETERS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Feb 08, 2024
Examiner
O CONNOR, BRIAN T
Art Unit
2465
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Qualcomm Incorporated
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
753 granted / 885 resolved
+27.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
921
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.0%
-33.0% vs TC avg
§103
45.5%
+5.5% vs TC avg
§102
33.1%
-6.9% vs TC avg
§112
9.1%
-30.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 885 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 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. For claim 20, claim limitations “means for identifying”, “means for selecting”, and “means for transmitting” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder “means for” coupled with functional language “identifying”, “selecting”, and “transmitting” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Since the claim limitations invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 20 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Figure 2 and Figure 9. If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action. If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitations treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim so that it will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-5, 9-13, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhou et al. (US 2025/0106785 A1; hereafter ZHOU). With respect to claim 1, ZHOU discloses a method of wireless communication (Abstract; Title) by a wireless device (100 in FIG. 1; paragraph [0103]), comprising: identifying a region in which the wireless device is located (S101, S102, S103 in FIG. 9); identifying an indication, associated with the identified region, of whether to apply one or more exception values or one or more default values, associated with one or more parameters for radio frequency (RF) exposure compliance (FIG. 8; S202, S203, S204 in FIG. 10; [TABLE 1]; paragraphs [0038] and [0039]); selecting the one or more exception values based on the indication (FIG. 8; paragraph [0088]); and transmitting a signal at a transmit power based at least in part on the selected one or more exception values (S205 in FIG. 10). With respect to claim 2, ZHOU further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the indication includes a tag associated with a particular set of the one or more exception values among a plurality of sets of the one or more exception values (FIG. 8; S202, S203, S204 in FIG. 10; [TABLE 1]; paragraphs [0038] and [0039]). With respect to claim 3, ZHOU further discloses the method of claim 2, wherein selecting the one or more exception values comprises selecting the particular set of the one or more exception values based on a value of the tag corresponding to the particular set (FIG. 8; S202, S203, S204 in FIG. 10; [TABLE 1]; paragraphs [0038] and [0039]). With respect to claim 4, ZHOU further discloses the method of claim 2, wherein: a presence of the tag for the identified region in a look-up table indicates to apply the one or more exception values; and an absence of the tag for the identified region in the look-up table indicates to apply the one or more default values (FIG. 8; S202, S203, S204 in FIG. 10; [TABLE 1]; paragraphs [0038] and [0039]). With respect to claim 5, ZHOU further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: identifying the indication comprises searching for the indication in a first look-up table mapping the region to a second look-up table ([TABLE 2]) comprising the one or more exception values and the one or more default values (FIG. 8; S202, S203, S204 in FIG. 10; [TABLE 1]; paragraphs [0038] and [0039]); selecting the one or more exception values comprises selecting the one or more exception values in the second look-up table ([TABLE 2]) when the indication indicates to apply the one or more exception values (FIG. 8; S202, S203, S204 in FIG. 10; [TABLE 1]; paragraphs [0038] and [0039]); and the method further comprises selecting the one or more default values in the second look-up table ([TABLE 2]) when the indication indicates to apply the default values (FIG. 8; S202, S203, S204 in FIG. 10; [TABLE 1]; paragraphs [0038] and [0039]). With respect to claim 9, ZHOU further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more exception values are derived from measurements of RF exposure under one or more different test conditions than the one or more default values (FIG. 8; S202, S203, S204 in FIG. 10; [TABLE 1]; paragraphs [0038] and [0039]). With respect to claim 10, ZHOU further discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the one or more different test conditions include a different separation distance between the wireless device and human tissue (FIG. 1) or a model of human tissue (FIG. 8; S202, S203, S204 in FIG. 10; [TABLE 1]; paragraphs [0038] and [0039]). With respect to claim 11, ZHOU further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more exception values are derived from different device usage states or physical configuration states than the one or more default values (FIG. 8; S202, S203, S204 in FIG. 10; [TABLE 1]; paragraphs [0038] and [0039]). With respect to claim 12, ZHOU further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more exception values are associated with a particular exposure scenario (FIG. 8; S202, S203, S204 in FIG. 10; [TABLE 1]; paragraphs [0038] and [0039]). With respect to claim 13, ZHOU further discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the particular exposure scenario includes body-worn exposure (101, 104 in FIG. 1). With respect to claim 15, ZHOU further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving a table comprising the one or more exception values and the one or more default values, and storing information in a memory of the wireless device based on the received table, wherein the selecting comprises selecting the one or more exception values using the stored information (FIG. 8; S202, S203, S204 in FIG. 10; [TABLE 1]; paragraphs [0038] and [0039]). With respect to claim 17, ZHOU discloses an apparatus (100 in FIG. 1; paragraph [0103]) for wireless communication (Abstract; Title), comprising: one or more memories (121 in FIG. 3) collectively storing executable instructions; and one or more processors (110 in FIG. 3) coupled to the one or more memories, the one or more processors being collectively configured to execute the executable instructions to cause the apparatus to: identify a region in which the apparatus is located (S101, S102, S103 in FIG. 9); identify an indication, associated with the identified region, of whether to apply one or more exception values or one or more default values, associated with one or more parameters for radio frequency (RF) exposure compliance (FIG. 8; S202, S203, S204 in FIG. 10; [TABLE 1]; paragraphs [0038] and [0039]); select the one or more exception values based on the indication (FIG. 8; paragraph [0088]); and control transmission of a signal at a transmit power based at least in part on the selected one or more exception values (S205 in FIG. 10). With respect to claim 18, ZHOU further discloses the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the indication includes a tag associated with a particular set of the one or more exception values among a plurality of sets of the one or more exception values (FIG. 8; S202, S203, S204 in FIG. 10; [TABLE 1]; paragraphs [0038] and [0039]). With respect to claim 19, ZHOU further discloses the apparatus of claim 18, wherein: a presence of the tag for the identified region in a look-up table indicates to apply the one or more exception values; and an absence of the tag for the identified region in the look-up table indicates to apply the one or more default values (FIG. 8; S202, S203, S204 in FIG. 10; [TABLE 1]; paragraphs [0038] and [0039]). With respect to claim 20, ZHOU discloses an apparatus (100 in FIG. 1; paragraph [0103]) for wireless communication (Abstract; Title), comprising: means (110 in FIG. 3) for identifying a region in which the apparatus is located (S101, S102, S103 in FIG. 9); means (110 in FIG. 3) for identifying an indication, associated with the identified region, of whether to apply one or more exception values or one or more default values, associated with one or more parameters for radio frequency (RF) exposure compliance (FIG. 8; S202, S203, S204 in FIG. 10; [TABLE 1]; paragraphs [0038] and [0039]); means (110 in FIG. 3) for selecting the one or more exception values based on the indication (FIG. 8; paragraph [0088]); and means (150, 160 in FIG. 3) for transmitting a signal at a transmit power based at least in part on the selected one or more exception values (S205 in FIG. 10). 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 6-8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHOU in view of ROUAISSIA et al. (US 2021/0266393 A1; hereafter ROUAISSIA). With respect to claim 6, ZHOU further discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the second look-up table maps a plurality of frequency bands, radio access technologies, antennas, antenna groups, or any combination thereof to one or more maximum transmit powers corresponding to different RF exposure scenarios (FIG. 8; S202, S203, S204 in FIG. 10; [TABLE 1]; paragraphs [0038] and [0039]). ZHOU does not disclose maximum time-averaged transmit power. ROUAISSIA discloses maximum time-averaged transmit power (paragraphs [0006] and [0008]). ROUAISSIA teaches the benefit of controlled exposure to wireless device end users (paragraphs [0004] and [0005]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the averaging and standards as taught by ROUAISSIA in the method of ZHOU to produce an expected result. With respect to claim 7, ZHOU further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more exception values represent exceptions to maximum transmit powers corresponding to at least one of guidelines or regulations for limiting human exposure to RF energy (FIG. 8; S202, S203, S204 in FIG. 10; [TABLE 1]; paragraphs [0038] and [0039]). ZHOU does not disclose maximum time-averaged transmit power. ROUAISSIA discloses maximum time-averaged transmit power (paragraphs [0006] and [0008]). ROUAISSIA teaches the benefit of controlled exposure to wireless device end users (paragraphs [0004] and [0005]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the averaging and standards as taught by ROUAISSIA in the method of ZHOU to produce an expected result. With respect to claim 8, ZHOU does not disclose the method of claim 7, wherein the guidelines include guidelines as provided by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) or specifications as provided by a regulator. ROUAISSIA discloses wherein the guidelines include guidelines as provided by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) or specifications as provided by a regulator (paragraphs [0006] and [0008]). ROUAISSIA teaches the benefit of controlled exposure to wireless device end users (paragraphs [0004] and [0005]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the averaging and standards as taught by ROUAISSIA in the method of ZHOU to produce an expected result. With respect to claim 14, ZHOU further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more parameters for RF exposure compliance include a maximum transmit power associated with an RF exposure limit (FIG. 8; S202, S203, S204 in FIG. 10; [TABLE 1]; paragraphs [0038] and [0039]). ZHOU does not disclose maximum time-averaged transmit power. ROUAISSIA discloses maximum time-averaged transmit power (paragraphs [0006] and [0008]). ROUAISSIA teaches the benefit of controlled exposure to wireless device end users (paragraphs [0004] and [0005]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the averaging and standards as taught by ROUAISSIA in the method of ZHOU to produce an expected result. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHOU in view of GAO (US 2023/0362832 A1) With respect to claim 16, ZHOU does not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the region is identified based on a received mobile country code (MCC), and wherein the indication is associated with the MCC or a list of MCCs including the received MCC. GAO discloses wherein the region is identified based on a received mobile country code (MCC), and wherein the indication is associated with the MCC or a list of MCCs including the received MCC (paragraph [0050]). GAO teaches the benefit of including global operator identification for power settings (paragraph [0045], [0046], and [0047]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use identification of different operators setting as taught by GAO with the method of ZHOU to produce an expected result. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian T O'Connor whose telephone number is (571)270-1081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri Flex 10am-6:30pm. 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, Gary Mui can be reached at 571-270-1420. 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. /BRIAN T O CONNOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465 February 13, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 08, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598515
NETWORK ENTITIES FOR ENHANCED QOS MONITORING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12574177
IMPROVED TRIGGER FRAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12557090
UPLINK CHANNEL TRANSMISSION METHOD AND APPARATUS, AND BASE STATION, TERMINAL AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12550129
TRIGGER BASED NULL DATA PACKET TRANSMISSION METHOD AND RELATED APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12549993
ENHANCED USER EQUIPMENT REPORT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 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
85%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+8.4%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 885 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