Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/554,807

COMMUNICATION APPARATUS AND COMMUNICATION METHOD

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Oct 11, 2023
Examiner
FAYED, RASHA K
Art Unit
2413
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Sony Group Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
220 granted / 355 resolved
+4.0% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+28.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
394
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.0%
-36.0% vs TC avg
§103
68.4%
+28.4% vs TC avg
§102
16.2%
-23.8% vs TC avg
§112
7.9%
-32.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 355 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Response to Amendment Claims 1, 3-4, 11-12 and 14-15 are amended. Claims 2, 5-10 and 13 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3-4, 11-12 and 14-15 are pending. Information Disclosure Statement 3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/6/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements is being considered by the examiner. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, filed on 12/5/2025 with respect to claims 11, 3-4, 11-12 and 14-15, have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. Claim Interpretation 4. 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. 5. 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. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “Control Circuitry” in claims 1 & 12. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 6. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. The limitations of “Control Circuitry” in claims 1 & 12 is being treated in accordance with 112(f), because the associated functions are modified by a word that serves as a generic placeholder (i.e. the claims use the terms “Circuitry” that is a substitute for “means”). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 7. 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. 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. 8. Claims 1, 3, 11, 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US. Pub. No. 2019/0098671A1) in view of Xiong et al. (US. Pub. No. 2015/0085764 A1). Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses a communication apparatus (See Lin; Fig. 11; User equipment 12) comprising: control circuitry (See Lin; Fig. 11; Processing Circuit [Microcontroller] 30) configured to: generate a transmission signal (See Par. [76] and Fig. 12; 1220 & 1230 of Lin for a reference to generating a second random access preamble signal and transmitting the RACH preamble signal to the eNB [Communication Partner]), the transmission signal comprising two parts that are concatenated in time, each of the two parts comprising symbols of equal length, each of the two parts having a corresponding cyclic prefix at a head or a tail thereof (See Par. [12], [53] and Figs. 7 of Lin for a reference to the cyclic prefix is a guard interval that is added between consecutive symbols, which is either the head or the tail of the first RACH preamble in the second RACH preamble); a first part of the two parts comprising a first signal that has been repeated a first number of times (See Par. [27], [64]-[66], [83] and Fig. 6 & 7 of Lin for a reference to transmitting, by the remote user equipment, a third random access preamble that is formed by repeating a basic OFDM symbol a plurality of times [First Number of Times]), and a second part of the two parts comprising a second signal, different from the first signal, that has been repeated the first number of times (See Par. [53[, [76], [87], [95] and Figs. 4 & 12 of Lin for a reference to the second RACH preamble signal is generated by concatenating N [Second Number of Times] first preamble signals that comprises a cyclic prefix portion and a plurality of identical symbols. The CP portion is between consecutive symbols (Head/Tail of second signal); and transmitting the transmission signal (See Par. [27], [64], [83] and Fig. 6 & 7 of Lin for a reference to transmitting, by a first remote user equipment, a first random access preamble that is formed by repeating a basic OFDM symbol a plurality of times [First Number of Times]); Lin does not explicitly disclose wherein only one of the first signals that is adjacent to the corresponding cyclic prefix is truncated by a length equal to a length of the cyclic prefix so that the truncated first signal and the corresponding cyclic prefix are contained within a common symbol of the first part while remaining ones of the first signals occupy an entire respective symbol, and wherein only one of the second signals that is adjacent to the corresponding cyclic prefix is truncated by a length equal to a length of the cyclic prefix so that the truncated second signal and the corresponding cyclic prefix are contained within a common symbol of the second part while remaining ones of the second signals occupy an entire respective symbol. However, Xiong discloses wherein only one of the first signals that is adjacent to the corresponding cyclic prefix is truncated by a length equal to a length of the cyclic prefix so that the truncated first signal and the corresponding cyclic prefix are contained within a common symbol of the first part while remaining ones of the first signals occupy an entire respective symbol (See par. [31], [40]-[41] and Fig. 4 of Xiong for a reference to puncturing [Truncating] the cyclic shift on the head with the first repetition block of the first signal in the first symbol having the same length of the cyclic prefix. The subsequent repetition blocks are contained in the following symbol), and wherein only one of the second signals that is adjacent to the corresponding cyclic prefix is truncated by a length equal to a length of the cyclic prefix so that the truncated second signal and the corresponding cyclic prefix are contained within a common symbol of the second part while remaining ones of the second signals occupy an entire respective symbol (See par. [31], [40]-[42] and Fig. 4 & 5 of Xiong for a reference to puncturing [Truncating] the cyclic shift on the head with the first repetition block of the second signal in the first symbol having the same length of the cyclic prefix. The subsequent repetition blocks are contained in the following symbol). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Xiong to Lin. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance, by reducing interference and allowing a receiving device to distinguish the transmission from transmissions of other devices through including signals based on a basic sequence and modified by a cyclic shift. (Xiong; Par. [27]) Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lin and Xiong, specifically Lin discloses wherein the transmission signal is repeated for a second number of times (See Par. [53[, [76], [87], [95] and Figs. 4 & 12 of Lin for a reference to receiving a second random access preamble signal, which is generated by concatenating N [Second Number of Times] first preamble signals that comprises a cyclic prefix portion and a plurality of identical symbols. The CP portion is between consecutive symbols (Head/Tail of second signal)), wherein the first number of times is same as the second number of times (See Par. [62], [70]-[71], [95] and Figs. 8 of Lin for a reference to the number of times of repetitive transmission is N symbols, and the number of times of concatenation is N preamble symbols [Same Number]). Regarding claim 11, the combination of Lin and Xiong, specifically Lin discloses wherein each of the two parts are divided into two subparts, wherein each of the two subparts are transmitted in different frequency bands, with each subpart having the corresponding cyclic prefix at the head or the tail thereof (See Par. [95], [99], [101] and Figs. 7 of Lin for a reference to generating a RACH preamble signal formed by concatenating a plurality N of preamble symbols [Blocks]. Each preamble symbol is transmitted at different subcarrier frequency). Regarding claim 12, Lin discloses a communication apparatus (See Lin; Fig. 13; Base Station 10) comprising: control circuitry (See Lin; Fig. 13; Processing Circuit [Microcontroller] 40) configured to receive a reception signal (See Par. [27], [64], [83] and Fig. 6 & 7 of Lin for a reference to receiving, by the base station, a first random access preamble that is formed by repeating a basic OFDM symbol a plurality of times [First Number of Times]), the reception signal comprising two parts that are concatenated in time each of the two parts having a cyclic prefix at a head or a tail thereof (See Par. [12], [53] and Figs. 7 of Lin for a reference to the cyclic prefix is a guard interval that is added between consecutive symbols, which is either the head or the tail of the first RACH preamble in the second RACH preamble), a first part of the two parts comprising a first signal that has been repeated a first number of times (See Par. [27], [64]-[66], [83] and Fig. 6 & 7 of Lin for a reference to transmitting, by the remote user equipment, a third random access preamble that is formed by repeating a basic OFDM symbol a plurality of times [First Number of Times]), and a second part of the two parts comprising a second signal, different from the first signal, that has been repeated the first number of times (See Par. [53[, [76], [87], [95] and Figs. 4 & 12 of Lin for a reference to the second RACH preamble signal is generated by concatenating N [Second Number of Times] first preamble signals that comprises a cyclic prefix portion and a plurality of identical symbols. The CP portion is between consecutive symbols (Head/Tail of second signal). Lin does not explicitly disclose process the reception signal, wherein only one of the first signals that is adjacent to the corresponding cyclic prefix is truncated by a length equal to a length of the cyclic prefix so that the truncated first signal and the corresponding cyclic prefix are contained within a common symbol of the first part while remaining ones of the first signals occupy an entire respective symbol, and wherein only one of the second signals that is adjacent to the corresponding cyclic prefix is truncated by a length equal to a length of the cyclic prefix so that the truncated second signal and the corresponding cyclic prefix are contained within a common symbol of the second part while remaining ones of the second signals occupy an entire respective symbol. However, Xiong discloses process the reception signal, wherein only one of the first signals that is adjacent to the corresponding cyclic prefix is truncated by a length equal to a length of the cyclic prefix so that the truncated first signal and the corresponding cyclic prefix are contained within a common symbol of the first part while remaining ones of the first signals occupy an entire respective symbol (See par. [31], [40]-[41] and Fig. 4 of Xiong for a reference to puncturing [Truncating] the cyclic shift on the head with the first repetition block of the first signal in the first symbol having the same length of the cyclic prefix. The subsequent repetition blocks are contained in the following symbol), and wherein only one of the second signals that is adjacent to the corresponding cyclic prefix is truncated by a length equal to a length of the cyclic prefix so that the truncated second signal and the corresponding cyclic prefix are contained within a common symbol of the second part while remaining ones of the second signals occupy an entire respective symbol (See par. [31], [40]-[42] and Fig. 4 & 5 of Xiong for a reference to puncturing [Truncating] the cyclic shift on the head with the first repetition block of the second signal in the first symbol having the same length of the cyclic prefix. The subsequent repetition blocks are contained in the following symbol). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Xiong to Lin. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance, by reducing interference and allowing a receiving device to distinguish the transmission from transmissions of other devices through including signals based on a basic sequence and modified by a cyclic shift. (Xiong; Par. [27]) Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1. Regarding claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 12. 9. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. in view of Xiong et al. and further in view of Shin et al. (US. Pub. No. 2019/0159248 A1). Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lin and Xiong does not explicitly disclose wherein a signal length of each of the two parts not including the cyclic prefix or/and a signal length of each of the two parts including the cyclic prefix are set as a transmission unit in a time axis. However, Shin discloses wherein a signal length of each of the two parts not including the cyclic prefix or/and a signal length of each of the two parts including the cyclic prefix are set as a transmission unit in a time axis (See Par. [198], [210], [216], [242] and Fig. 10 of Shin for a reference to the preamble length, including the cyclic prefix (CP) length, is configured as the transmission time unit). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Shin to the combination of Lin and Xiong. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance, by improving the preamble reception performance at the BS, by setting a frequency gap having the same size in both directions of the preamble. (Shin; Par. [210]) Conclusion 10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Liu et al. (US. Pub. No. 2022/0263693 A1) discloses a symbol processing method and apparatus. Hellfajer et al. (US. Pub. No. 2021/0099329 A1) discloses methods and device for communications in device-to-device (D2D) networks. Abdoli et al. (US. Pub. No. 2018/0054268 A1) discloses a method of encoding digital data on multiple carrier frequencies. 11. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. 12. Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to RASHA FAYED whose telephone number is (571) 270-3804. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00AM-4:30PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the supervisory Examiner, Un Cho can be reached on (571)272-7919. 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. /R.K.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2413 /UN C CHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2413
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 11, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 04, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 04, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 05, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 05, 2026
Final Rejection — §103
Apr 07, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 08, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593353
METHOD FOR INFORMATION TRANSMISSION, TERMINAL DEVICE, AND NETWORK-SIDE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592755
COORDINATED BEAMFORMING (COBF) PROTOCOL FOR UNMANAGED NETWORKS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587867
INTERFERENCE MANAGEMENT FOR DYNAMIC SPECTRUM SHARING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581367
MEDICAL SYSTEM WITH SELF-HEALING WIRELESS NETWORK OF SENSORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12574174
REFERENCE SIGNAL CONFIGURATION TO ACCOUNT FOR A COMPRESSION FACTOR ASSOCIATED WITH TRANSMIT (TX) NONLINEARITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+28.0%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 355 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