Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/448,652

METHOD FOR DETERMINING NETWORK PARAMETER AND METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CONFIGURING WIRELESS NETWORK

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Aug 11, 2023
Examiner
DIVITO, WALTER J
Art Unit
2465
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Electronics And Telecommunications Research Institute
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
432 granted / 519 resolved
+25.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
548
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.4%
-36.6% vs TC avg
§103
51.5%
+11.5% vs TC avg
§102
20.2%
-19.8% vs TC avg
§112
15.5%
-24.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 519 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention 2 in the reply filed on 10/28/25 is acknowledged. Claims 1-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention 1, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/28/25. Initial Examination Applicant's submission filed on 10/28/23 and has been entered. Claims 7-20 are pending. Claims 1-6 are non-elected claims. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 7-11, 14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 20210045012 A1, cited by Applicant of Record). Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses a method for configuring a wireless network [fig. 2, 9-11], comprising: receiving at least one of information about functions supported by an Access Point (AP), factory equipment information, or information about an installation location in a factory, or a combination thereof (The Centralized AP (CAP) transmits load info which includes number of terminals for each freq band, quality for each freq band, spectral efficiency of the AP, and terminal transmission speed and traffic info (i.e., “info about functions supported” by AP) to the Centralized Controller (CC) (i.e., the CC receives) [par. 0098, 100-101, 061, fig. 9 no. 920-930]); configuring an initial network based on at least one of the information about the functions supported by the AP, the factory equipment information, or the information about the installation location in the factory, or a combination thereof (The CC commands the CAP to periodically/aperiodically perform channel scanning and determines the radio channels (i.e., configures initial network) [par. 0102, 105, 107, 133, fig. 9 no. 940, 960]); and transmitting information about a configuration of the initial network to the AP (The CC transmits the results of its radio channel determination for each terminal to the CAP [par. 0132-133, fig. 9 no. 940, 965]). Regarding claim 17, it is substantially similar to claim 7, except is in apparatus claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Lee further discloses an apparatus [fig. 2 no. 220] for configuring a wireless network [fig. 2], comprising: memory in which a control program for configuring a wireless network is stored [par. 0042, fig. 9 no. 905 (inherent)]; and a processor for executing the control program stored in the memory [par. 0042, fig. 9 no. 905 (inherent)]. Regarding claims 8 and 18, Lee discloses everything claimed, as applied above. Lee further discloses further comprising: updating parameter information required for a network configuration based on a network access request of a client and information required for the network configuration, which are received through the AP (The terminal periodically updates the CAP/CC (i.e., CC will update) based on “network access request” [par. 0098]; and transferring the updated parameter information to the client via the AP [par. 0132-133, fig. 9 no. 940, 965]. Regarding claims 9 and 19, Lee discloses everything claimed, as applied above. Lee further discloses: wherein the AP transfers parameter information arbitrarily determined based on the information about the configuration of the initial network to a client (The terminal (and ultimately the AP) transfer information according to some time frame (i.e., “arbitrarily”), where the system operates/repeats/updates periodically (i.e., based on initial network cofig) [par. 0100, 102, 148, fig. 9, 11]). Regarding claims 10 and 20, Lee discloses everything claimed, as applied above. Lee further discloses: wherein the AP configures an operation channel and channel access parameters based on the information about the configuration of the initial network [fig. 9 no. 920-965, fig. 11 no. 1120-1150], and, using a beacon, the AP transfers information to a client that intends to access the AP (The terminal receives its info from AP beacons, including the CAP [par. 0136]). Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses everything claimed, as applied above. Lee further discloses: wherein the client receives the information and accesses the AP, thereby making a request for access to a network configuration [fig. 9 no. 901, 903, 905, 920, 970]. Regarding claim 14, Lee discloses everything claimed, as applied above. Lee further discloses: wherein the client receives the information and transfers the request for access to the network configuration and information required for the network configuration to the AP by accessing the AP (The terminal (i.e., client) accesses the AP(s) (i.e., “transfers … by accessing the AP”) [fig. 9 no. 970]). 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 12-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Zhou (US 20140314003 A1). Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses everything claimed, as applied above. Although Lee discloses wherein, in response to the request for access , … for information required for the network configuration, as discussed above, Lee does not explicitly disclose the AP makes a request … to the client. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Zhou. In the same field of endeavor, Zhou discloses: the AP makes a request … to the client [par. 0010]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee with Zhou. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of collecting info about neighboring APs [Zhou par. 0008]. Regarding claim 13, Lee and Zhou disclose everything claimed, as applied above. Lee and Zhou further disclose: wherein, in response to the request [Zhou par. 0010], the client transfers the information required for the network configuration to the AP [Lee, as discussed above]. Regarding claim 15, Lee discloses everything claimed, as applied above. Although Lee discloses further comprising: collecting channel monitoring result information during data transmission and reception between the AP and the client or after the data transmission and reception [fig. 9 no. 910-915]; receiving channel quality estimation information of the client and traffic-type-related information [fig. 9 no. 920]; receiving terminal channel quality collection information for the client [par. 0098, 100-101, 061, fig. 9 no. 920], … from the AP [par. 0098, 100-101, 061, fig. 9 no. 930]; and updating parameters based on at least one of the channel monitoring result information, the channel quality estimation information of the client, the traffic-type-related information, or the terminal channel quality collection information, or a combination thereof [par. 0098, fig. 9 no. 960], and as discussed above, Lee does not explicitly disclose which is received in response to a request from the AP. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Zhou. In the same field of endeavor, Zhou discloses: which is received in response to a request from the AP [par. 0010]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee with Zhou. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of collecting info about neighboring APs [Zhou par. 0008]. Regarding claim 16, Lee and Zhou disclose everything claimed, as applied above. Lee further discloses further comprising: transferring the updated parameters to the client via the AP [fig. 9 no. 965]. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Walter J DiVito whose telephone number is (571)272-2556. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8 am - 6 pm (PST). 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. /WALTER J DIVITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 11, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 01, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598648
ENHANCED QUALITY OF SERVICE STATUS REPORT THAT SUPPORTS LATENCY REQUIREMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598669
METHOD OF HANDLING ACTIVE TIME FOR SL COMMUNICATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593258
Vehicle Control System
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587962
METHODS OF HANDLING DISCONTINUOUS RECEPTION INACTIVITY TIMERS BASED ON SCELL ACTIVATION AND RELATED DEVICES AND NODES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581396
TECHNIQUES FOR BAND PRIORITY UTILIZATION FOR CELL SCANNING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
83%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+8.4%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 519 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