Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/472,498

METHOD AND DEVICE FOR COMMUNICATION IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM SUPPORTING MULTIPLE RECONFIGURABLE INTELLIGENT SURFACES (RIS)

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Sep 22, 2023
Examiner
WOLFORD, NAOMI M
Art Unit
3648
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Seoul National University R&Db Foundation
OA Round
2 (Final)
54%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 54% of resolved cases
54%
Career Allow Rate
126 granted / 232 resolved
+2.3% vs TC avg
Strong +41% interview lift
Without
With
+40.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
259
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.5%
-38.5% vs TC avg
§103
56.0%
+16.0% vs TC avg
§102
20.1%
-19.9% vs TC avg
§112
21.2%
-18.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 232 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 The pending application 18/472,498, filed on 22 September 2023, claims priority from foreign application KR10-2022-0150902, filed on 11 November 2022 in the Republic of Korea, and foreign application KR10-2022-0120361, filed on 22 September 2022 in the Republic of Korea. Response to Amendment Applicant's amendment filed on 5 FEB 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are still pending in this application, with claims 1 and 11 being independent. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim Objections Claims 6 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: In line 7 of claims 6 and 16, the equation obscures the text, as shown below. PNG media_image1.png 47 305 media_image1.png Greyscale Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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. Claims 1-20 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1: Lines 3-4 recite “selecting at least two reference reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) devices for estimating a position of a user equipment (UE) from among a plurality of RIS devices.” Lines 9-11 recite “estimating a multi-RIS channel for the plurality of RIS devices by estimating one or more channels in one or more reflection paths between the UE and one or more RIS devices except for the selected at least two reference RIS devices among the plurality of RIS devices.” It is unclear to the examiner if “one or more RIS devices” in line 10 are included in, are the same as or distinct from “a plurality of RIS devices” recited in line 4. Additionally, it is unclear if “the plurality of RIS devices” in line 11 refer to the “selected at least two reference RIS devices” or some other RIS devices. For the purpose of prosecution, “estimating a multi-RIS channel for the plurality of RIS devices by estimating one or more channels in one or more reflection paths between the UE and one or more RIS devices except for the selected at least two reference RIS devices among the plurality of RIS devices” has been interpreted as “estimating a multi-RIS channel for the plurality of RIS devices by estimating one or more channels in one or more reflection paths between the UE and one or more unselected RIS devices among the plurality of RIS devices.” Claims 2-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being depending on rejected claim 1 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above. Regarding claim 11: Lines 4-5 recites “select at least two reference reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) devices for estimating a position of a user equipment (UE) from among a plurality of RIS devices.” Lines 10-12 recite “estimate a multi-RIS channel for the plurality of RIS devices by estimating one or more channels in one or more reflection paths between the UE and one or more RIS devices except for the selected at least two references RIS devices among the plurality of RIS devices.” It is unclear to the examiner if “one or more RIS devices” in line 11 are included in, are the same as or distinct from “a plurality of RIS devices” recited in line 5. Additionally, it is unclear if “the plurality of RIS devices” in line 11 refer to the “selected at least two reference RIS devices” or some other RIS devices. For the purpose of prosecution, “estimate a multi-RIS channel for the plurality of RIS devices by estimating one or more channels in one or more reflection paths between the UE and one or more RIS devices except for the selected at least two references RIS devices among the plurality of RIS devices” has been interpreted as “estimate a multi-RIS channel for the plurality of RIS devices by estimating one or more channels in one or more reflection paths between the UE and one or more unselected RIS devices among the plurality of RIS devices.” Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being depending on rejected claim 11 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 6 and 16 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding dependent claims 6 and 16, the prior art of record fails to explicitly teach or render obvious, either alone or in combination, estimating the multi-RIS channel for the plurality of RIS devices includes estimating a channel hr,k in a reflection path between the UE and a kth RIS device except for the selected at least two reference RIS devices among the plurality of RIS devices, wherein the channel hr,k is estimated through the following equation: h r , k = P L x k - x u 2 + y k - y u 2 a θ k θ k = tan - 1 ⁡ x k - x u y k - y u wherein position information about the kth RIS device is (xk, yk), the position information about the UE is (xu, yu), a θ k is a steering vector indicating a channel direction of the kth RIS device, a function of PL indicates a path loss based on a distance between the base station and the kth RIS device, and θk indicates an angle of departure (AoD) between the UE and the kth RIS device. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAOMI M WOLFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-3929. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 4:30 pm EST. 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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571)270-7792. 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. NAOMI M. WOLFORD Examiner Art Unit 3648 /N.M.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 3648 25 MAR 2026 /RESHA DESAI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 22, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Feb 05, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 30, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12592066
OBSTACLE IDENTIFICATION METHOD, VEHICLE-MOUNTED DEVICE AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584997
STANDING WAVE RADAR, OCCUPANT DETECTION SYSTEM, AND OBJECT DETECTION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12559623
RESIN COMPOSITION AND ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVE ABSORBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12523765
Driver Assistance System and Device and Method for Determining Object Status Parameter for Driver Assistance System
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12517244
APPARATUS FOR DRIVER ASSISTANCE AND METHOD OF CONTROLLING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
54%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+40.9%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 232 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